View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Innovation How Might We |  Systems Thinking Leverage Points |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | With a stuck problem carrying many implicit assumptions, the method translates observations into open, workable questions. It sharpens the problem frame without pre-thinking the solution, turning frustration or fuzziness into a search space with clear direction. | Leverage Points show exactly where interventions in a system produce a disproportionate effect. It draws relationships, patterns, and feedback loops. The result is captured as a leverage map and action strategy. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | High | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–45 min | Half day | 60–90 min | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 1-10 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | HMW Questions, Challenge Framing, Idea Prompts | Leverage Map, Action Strategy | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder |
Tagsno overlap | FramingOpportunityIdeationQuestions | Systems thinkingChangeStrategy | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning |